Finocchio

Microsoft Responds

Andy Towle reports a response from Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer to charges that the company's lack of support for Washington's recently-defeated LGBT rights bill was the result of being cowed by the boycott threats of a fundamentalist preacher (see here and here).  In part, Ballmer states:

"There have been several news stories that imply that Microsoft changed
its position on an anti-discrimination bill, HB 1515, because of
pressure from a conservative religious group. I want to make it clear
that that is not the case.

When our government affairs team put together its list of its
legislative priorities in Olympia before the Legislative Session began
in January, we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are
more directly related to our business such as computer privacy,
education, and competitiveness. The anti-discrimination bill was not
on this list and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the
bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a
letter of support for similar legislation.

On February 1, two Microsoft employees testified before a House
Committee in support of the bill. These employees were speaking as
private citizens, not as representatives of the corporate position,
but there was considerable confusion about whether they were speaking
on behalf of Microsoft.

Following this hearing, a local religious leader named Rev. Ken
Hutcherson, who has a number of Microsoft employees in his
congregation, approached the company, seeking clarification of whether
the two employees were representing Microsoft's official position. He
also sought a variety of other things, such as firing of the two
employees and a public statement by Microsoft that the bill was not
necessary.

After careful review, Brad Smith informed Rev. Hutcherson that there
was no basis for firing the two employees over the misunderstanding
over their testimony, but did agree that we should clarify the
ambiguity over the employee testimony. Brad also made it clear that
while the company was not taking a position on HB 1515, the company
remains strongly committed to its internal policies supporting
anti-discrimination and industry-leading benefits for gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender employees."

Ballmer continues, considering whether it is proper for a company to take positions on social issues:

"It's appropriate to invoke the company's name on issues of public
policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but
it's much less clear when it's appropriate to invoke the company's
name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry – and
on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent
opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost
to a broad group of shareholders. On some issues, it is more
appropriate for employees or shareholders to get involved as
individual citizens. As CEO, I feel a real sense of responsibility
around this question, and I believe there are important distinctions
between my personal views on policy issues and when it's appropriate
to involve the company."

On its face, Ballmer's statement would appear to be a reasonable recognition of a corporation's primary obligation to its shareholders being to maximize profits (following Milton Friedman's much-cited line formulation).  But let's be clear about what the particular piece of legislation at issue here involved.  HB 1515 proposed to include sexual orientation in Washington's non-discrimination law.  Specifically, the bill sought to protect individuals from discrimination in "employment, public accommodations, real estate transactions, insurance and commerce."  Opponents of the bill argued, incoherently, that including prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation constituted a constraint on free speech and thought ("It should not be the law that people cannot speak out against an unnatural state; you cannot force people to accept these practices.").

Ballmer's position, then, is that while Microsoft may support diversity within its own walls, for the company to lend its support to that principle's applicability for the community at large is somehow beyond the pale.  What is interesting in Ballmer's discomfort is the assumption that the company's policies and actions are separable from taking positions on social issues.

For a discussion of corporations' social responsibilities and their corporate policies, Don Herzog, writing at Left2Right has a worthwhile article here.  Herzog writes that:

"[F]irms that don't have pro-diversity policies are doing politics, too.  What you might see as natural or unremarkable, just the ordinary pursuit of profits, is in fact tantamount to a decision that diversity doesn't matter in the workplace.  It is a perfectly defensible politics.  But it's political all the same.

What about this rule?  'Corporations should maximize their profits within the constraints of the law.'  That too is perfectly defensible.  But it isn't knock-down slam-dunk obviously the right view.  Take a corporation that believes environmental regulation is too lax and has grave concerns about polluting the environment.  (No, not the kind of corporation that seizes on green causes as a pretext for gaining a competitive advantage.)  Are they obliged to ignore their own concerns?

So firms are inescapably making social policy."

Christianity Against Itself

I would recommend an OpEd article written by Paul Gaston, Professor Emeritus of Southern and Civil Rights History, University of Virginia, which appears in this morning's Washington Post.  Prof. Gaston's assertion is that recent political and ideological attacks on the federal judiciary, arising out of the Schaivo case and other decisions, represents a division within American Christianity.  Although it is only a fragmentary view of what is at stake in a pluralist society, Gaston offers an interesting analysis.

Microsoft's Ambivalent Backpedaling

The Seattle Times today confirms reports that, whatever the ultimate cause, Microsoft did indeed backpedal on its earlier support for Washington state's recently-defeated gay rights bill.  The paper reports that:

"Begasse, the Microsoft spokeswoman, said the company had indeed sent a letter in support of the bill last year, and that for the past decade, it has supported and continues to support Human Rights Campaign, a national lobbying group advocating for similar legislation at the national level.

She said the meeting company officials had with Hutcherson in February 'was long after our decision' to narrow the company's legislative focus, and that the decision to be neutral 'was not influenced by anything external.' Begasse said Hutcherson wanted Microsoft to come out against the bill, but the company refused.

Regardless of when and why Microsoft shifted positions on the bill, people in the Capitol were talking about it yesterday.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, called it shocking. And while she didn't know if it affected the vote, she believed it didn't help. 'It was the wrong signal at the wrong time,' she said. . . . Companies that endorsed the bill include Boeing, Nike, Washington Mutual, Vulcan and Hewlett-Packard."

No matter what the company's ultimate reasoning, the fact of support later withdrawn is undeniable, and the appearance that such withdrawal was influenced by the threat of an anti-gay boycott is something that Microsoft, if it is to live up to its history of responsible positions on LGBT issues, must address.

HRC today announced its "disappointment" with Microsoft's decision on the Washington rights bill.  In an open letter to Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer, HRC's President, Joe Solomonese stated that:

"In media reports, your company spokesperson said that workplace fairness is not directly 'related to our business' and that the short legislative schedule precluded the company from supporting the bill. That position belies your own policies and those of countless other companies who believe firmly that workplace protections for all are essential to maintaining a competitive business environment. Successful businesses embrace diversity not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it the right thing to do for their business.

We also find it troubling that public reports allege that Microsoft made this decision not based on a business rationale, but under pressure from conservative religious-political groups. The reported rationale that Microsoft officials were afraid of offending 'Christians' is itself deeply offensive to the many Christians who believe in non-discrimination and were proud of Microsoft’s previous position. Further, giving in to threats from a small group fighting to impose their own view of religion on the company and the state will only encourage more such threats. We urge you to work to change this perception.

While Microsoft’s internal policies regarding GLBT diversity have been trend setting, its reversal sends a signal, intended or not, that it is no longer supportive of its GLBT employees, customers and shareholders. It implies a lack of support for its own employees as they seek housing and insurance coverage and creates the impression that Microsoft does not support equal treatment at businesses elsewhere in Washington. In fact, the strong stance of Microsoft on behalf of the GLBT community and our partnership with the organization in the past makes this feel like even more of a betrayal.

In addition, Microsoft’s position is the exception to many other leading companies that support the bill and the timing of the withdrawal of your support has created the perception that Microsoft was partly responsible for the bill’s demise.

Microsoft should reinstate its support for this bill when it returns to the Legislature. It’s simply the right thing to do for Microsoft’s employees and its business. Further, we call on Microsoft to unambiguously state its support for non-discrimination legislation at the state and federal levels. This lack of clarity may have already had a devastating effect and it’s past time to clear the air."

Benediction

In an unsurprising, but disappointing move, Pope Benedict XVI has condemned recent Spanish legislation that would authorize marriage for gay men and lesbians.

"A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.

He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law."

Microsoft And Gay Rights -- Weighing The Costs

The Washington state senate voted down a gay rights measure, 25-24.  In some accounts, a key shift on the part of Microsoft doomed the measure, which withdrew its support for the bill, caving in, some argue, to a boycott threat.

"Microsoft officials denied any connection between their decision not to endorse the bill, which was supported by many other high-tech companies and multinational corporations, and the church's opposition, although they acknowledged meeting twice with the church minister, Ken Hutcherson.

Dr. Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Bible Church, who has organized several rallies opposing same-sex marriage here and in Washington, D.C., said he had threatened in those meetings to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products. State Representative Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said that late last month he had conversations with high-level Microsoft employees who mentioned the boycott threat and said that they could not support the bill this year.

After Dr. Hutcherson told Microsoft that he would organize the boycott, 'they backed off,' the pastor said in a telephone interview Thursday. 'I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about,' he said."

KipEsquire helpfully points out Microsoft's past support for LGBT issues.

Many companies have been at the forefront of gay rights initiatives (well ahead of government), viewing them as not simply the right thing to do, but also sound business.  As a case in point, IBM, which has long been a leader in LGBT efforts, will be honored next week at Equality Forum's International Business Colloquium Dinner in Philadelphia.

Marriage -- Si!

In Connecticut, same-sex couples may soon join in not-quite-matrimony, while in Spain, land of machismo, gay men and lesbians will soon be able to marry.  However,

"The Spanish Bishops Conference, which has opposed the bill from its conception, says it goes 'against the common good' and that it was 'unfair that real marriage should be treated the same as the union of persons of the same sex'."

Ah, yes, and it is so obviously unfair that straight persons should be denied the smug pleasure of presumptive superiority to gay and lesbian persons.

Ted Olson On An Independent Judiciary

Former Solicitor General Theodore (Ted) B. Olson has published a sensible and reasoned response to recent attacks upon the independence of the federal judiciary by Tom Delay and others (see here, here, and here).  It merits quotation at length, and I would recommend it in full.

"Arrogant and misguided jurists exist, just as such qualities may be found in the rest of the population, and our citizens and elected representatives are fully justified in speaking out in forceful disagreement with judges who substitute their personal values or private social instincts for sound jurisprudential principles. But the remedies for these aberrations consist of reasoned, even sharp, criticism, appeals to higher courts, and selection of candidates for judicial positions that respect limits on the roles of judges.

But, absent lawlessness or corruption in the judiciary, which is astonishingly rare in this country, impeaching judges who render decisions we do not like is not the answer. Nor is the wholesale removal of jurisdiction from federal courts over such matters as prayer, abortion, or flag-burning. While Congress certainly has the constitutional power, indeed responsibility, to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts to ensure that judges decide only matters that are properly within their constitutional role and expertise, restricting the jurisdiction of courts in response to unpopular decisions is an overreaction that ill-serves the long-term interests of the nation. As much as we deplore incidents of bad judging, we are not necessarily better off with -- and may dislike even more -- adjudications made by presidents or this year's majority in Congress.

Calls to investigate judges who have made unpopular decisions are particularly misguided, and if actually pursued, would undermine the independence that is vital to the integrity of judicial systems. If a judge's decisions are corrupt or tainted, there are lawful recourses (prosecution or impeachment); but congressional interrogations of life-tenured judges, presumably under oath, as to why a particular decision was rendered, would constitute interference with -- and intimidation of -- the judicial process. And there is no logical stopping point once this power is exercised. . . .

We expect dignity, wisdom, decency, civility, integrity and restraint from our judges. It is time to exercise those same characteristics in our dealings with, and commentary on, those same judges -- from their appointment and confirmation, to their decision-making once they take office."

Meet Me In Hartford, Part II

Connecticut Governor Rell signed into law a bill enacting civil unions for gay men and lesbians.  The law goes into effect on October 1st.

As I have noted previously, Connecticut's civil unions law is an ambivalent advance for gay men and lesbians, since the Connecticut legislature appended to the bill an express definition of marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman, the mantra of the anti-marriage-equality set.

Re Riccardo

The ever-delightful Marion Lignana Rosenberg has a typically tasteful and helpful post on Maestro Riccardo Muti.

La Scala, The (Political?) Fallout

Only weeks after tumult among La Scala's orchestra and staff resulted in the the very public resignation of Maestro Riccardo Muti, one of La Scala's major backers, Fedele Confalonieri, has resigned in disgust.  The New York Times reports that:

"Mr. Confalonieri repeated a theme he had raised in interviews with Italian newspapers, saying the musicians were acting like empty-headed revolutionaries. 'It was a lot of '68 without the ideals,' he said.

The accusation is touchy in a nation with a proud leftist tradition, but many people involved say there is a political component to the dispute. Labor unions in Italy are generally allied with political parties, and a leading union at La Scala is affiliated with the left.

Mr. Confalonieri said that union was using the dispute to attack its enemies of the center-right who control Milan's local government and have a say in the theater's administration. The center-right also controls the national government under Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who is Mr. Confalonieri's boss with the controlling interest in Mediaset."